NCJ Number
108192
Journal
University of Chicago Law Review Volume: 53 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1986) Pages: 366-393
Date Published
1986
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article evaluates summary jury trial and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies in terms of four criteria: conformity with a model of rational litigan behavior, the verifiability of the success or failure of the procedure by accepted methods of scientific hypothesis testing, adherence to relevant legal and institutional constraints, and service of the social interest.
Abstract
Summary jury trial, and other alternatives like court-annexed arbitration and private ADR, seek to induce more settlements by generating more information about likely outcomes at trial. They recognize that litigants generally behave rationally, and they benefit litigants in general by increasing settlement rates and reducing caseloads. Research indicates that summary jury trial saves time and has high success rates, although cases may be selected on the basis of likely success. However, this means of ADR allows for no express authorization for the use of summary jury trials, and judges often fail to inform jurors that their decision is not legally binding. 39 footnotes.